Judgment or claims in excess of comprehensive liability plan — Reduction by court — Limits of liability.
(1) The combined, aggregate liability of a governmental entity and its employees for damages, costs and attorney’s fees under this chapter, on account of bodily or personal injury, death or property damage, or other loss as the result of any one (1) occurrence or accident regardless of the number of persons injured or the number of claimants, shall not exceed and is limited to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), unless the governmental entity has purchased applicable, valid, collectible liability insurance coverage in excess of said limit, in which event the controlling limit shall be the remaining available proceeds of such insurance. For claims arising from construction, operation or maintenance of impoundments, canals, laterals, drains or associated facilities that are under the supervision or control of the operating agency of irrigation districts whose board consists of directors of its member districts, the combined aggregate limit of liability for the operating agency, its member irrigation districts and their respective employees shall be the combined aggregate limit of a single governmental entity under this section. If any judgment or judgments, including costs and attorney’s fees that may be awarded, are returned or entered, and in the aggregate total more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), or the limits provided by said valid, collectible liability insurance, if any, whether in one (1) or more cases, the court shall reduce the amount of the award or awards, verdict or verdicts, or judgment or judgments in any case or cases within its jurisdiction so as to reduce said aggregate loss to said applicable statutory limit or to the limit or limits provided by said valid, collectible insurance, if any, whichever is greater.
(2) Limits of liability specified in this section shall not be increased or altered by the fact that a decedent, on account of whose death a wrongful death claim is asserted hereunder, left surviving him or her more than one (1) person entitled to make claim therefor, nor shall the aggregate recovery exceed the single limit provided for injury or death to any one (1) person in those cases in which there is both an injury claim and a death claim arising out of the injury to one (1) person, the intent of this section being to limit such liabilities and recoveries in the aggregate to one (1) limit only.
(3) The entire exposure of the entity and its employee or employees hereunder shall not be enlarged by the number of liable employees or the theory of concurrent or consecutive torts or tort feasors or of a sequence of accidents or incidents if the injury or injuries or their consequences stem from one (1) occurrence or accident.
(4) In no case shall any court enter judgment, or allow any judgment to stand, which results in the limit of liability provided in this section to be exceeded in any manner or respect. If any court has jurisdiction of two (2) or more such claims in litigation in which the adjudication is simultaneous and, in the aggregate, exceeds the limits provided in this section, the reduction shall be pro rata in a proportion consistent with the relative amounts of loss of the claimants before the court; otherwise, the reduction shall be determined and made in view of limits remaining after the prior settlement of any other such claims or the prior satisfaction of any other such judgments, and no consideration shall be given to other such outstanding claims, if any, which have not been settled or satisfied prior thereto.
(5) The court shall reduce any judgment in excess of the limits provided by this act in any matter within its jurisdiction, whether by reason of the adjudication in said proceedings alone or of the total or aggregate of all such awards, judgments, settlements, voluntary payments or other such loss relevant to the limits provided in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 54× “Under I.C. § 6-926, the State subsequently moved to amend the judgment against the State to $100,000 plus costs.”
Barringer v. State, 727 P.2d 1222 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 42× “Barringer’s claim of damages to $100,000 as provided by I.C. § 6-926. In February, 1983, the district court held that Idaho, not Washington, law should determine the issues of contribution and indemnification.”
Athay v. Stacey, 128 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2005).
· cites it 9× “Does the limit of liability established by Idaho Code § 6-926 apply to Sheriff Stacey and Rich County? F.”
Eller v. Idaho State Police, 443 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2019).
· cites it 8× “The district court then entered a memorandum decision and order reducing the award for Eller's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to $1,000,000 because Idaho Code section 6-926 caps the State's liability for actions brought under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) at…”
Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008).
· cites it 6× “§ 63-30-34, while the damage limit under the Idaho Act was $500,000 per occurrence regardless of the number of persons injured, I.C. § 6-926. 9 Our decision on how to apply the doctrine of comity must also give guidance to our trial courts when a tort action is brought in an…”
Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984).
· cites it 2× “1984) ($100,000 per claimant, $200,000 per incident); Idaho Code § 6-926 (b) (1979 & Supp. 1984) ($100,000 per claimant, $300,000 per incident; increased to $500,000 per incident effective Oct.”
Jones v. City of St. Maries, 727 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 4× “Governmental entities are liable "only for the pro rata share of the total damages awarded in favor of a claimant which is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions of the governmental entity or its employees." I.C. § 6-903(a).”
Barringer v. State, 727 P.2d 1222 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 42× “Barringer's claim of damages to $100,000 as provided by I.C. § 6-926. In February, 1983, the district court held that Idaho, not Washington, law should determine the issues of contribution and indemnification.”
Packard v. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 171, 661 P.2d 770 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “*607 I Since its enactment in 1971, the Idaho Tort Claims Act has imposed a limitation of $100,000 upon recovery for personal injury to, or the wrongful death of, an individual unless the public entity carries liability insurance with greater coverage.”
Sherrard v. City of Rexburg, 748 P.2d 399 (Idaho 1988).
· cites it 4× “00, but the parties agree that the liability of any of the defendants is limited by the provisions of I.C. § 6-926 (Idaho Tort Claims Act), to the sum of $100,000.”
— Idaho Code § 6-926(b) — 1 case
Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983).
“Under I.C. § 6-926, the State subsequently moved to amend the judgment against the State to $100,000 plus costs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.